Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Enhancing the effectiveness of juvenile drug courts by integrating evidence-based practices.



Key Questions Addressed
1 Evidence map
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Enhancing the effectiveness of juvenile drug courts by integrating evidence-based practices.
Author Henggeler SW., McCart MR., Cunningham PB., Chapman JE.
Country Family Services Research Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29401, USA. henggesw@musc.edu
Year 2012
Numbers Pubmed ID: 22309470

Secondary Publication Information
UI Title Author Country Year
System-level effects of integrating a promising treatment into juvenile drug courts. McCart MR., Henggeler SW., Chapman JE., Cunningham PB. Family Services Research Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, 67 President St., Suite McB406, MSC 861 Charleston, SC 29425, USA. mccartm@musc.edu 2012
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Extraction Form: Evidence Map
Arms
Number Title Description Comments
1 Fam_CM
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
2 PeerGroup
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Should this citation be included? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Does this paper originate from a primary study of interest? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Ages eligible (in years) 12
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
17
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Total sample size (in all arms) 104
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age distribution of enrolled population (in years)  15.4
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Substance used Cannabis
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Interventions studied? Behavioral
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Outcome? Objective measurement of use/abstinence and/or intensity
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Self report of use/abstinence and/or intensity
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Age variation of enrolled population (in years)  0.97
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study type RCT
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Is any arm a brief intervention (or single session)? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Income level of country(ies) of origin ... Country(ies) name(s) Unclear ... United States
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons


Results Data
Outcome: pct abstinent for cannabis      Population: All Participants
Time Point Measure Fam_CM PeerGroup


0 months

Percentage 92 88
N Analyzed 69 42


3 months

Percentage 30 32
N Analyzed 69 42


6 months

Percentage 28 21
N Analyzed 69 42


9 months

Percentage 30 30
N Analyzed 63 41


Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
Intention-to-treat-analysis: Bias due to incomplete reporting and analysis according to group allocation Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Group similarity at baseline (selection bias): Selection bias due to dissimilarity at baseline for the most important prognostic indicators Yes Similar
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Co-interventions (performance bias): Performance bias because co-interventions were different across groups Yes None
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Compliance (performance bias): Performance bias due to inappropriate compliance with interventions across groups Yes Implied good adherence ("as evidenced by the adherence indices across several JDC sites")
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Timing of outcome assessments (detection bias): Detection bias because important outcomes were not measured at the same time across groups Unsure Unclear if loss and replacement of two sites (at 8 and 13 mo post-randomization) in control group affected timing of outcome assessments.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Additional Bias: Bias due to problems not covered elsewhere in the table. If yes, describe them in the Notes. Yes 2 judicial courts randomized to "usual services" lost funding and were replaced with 2 others.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Random sequence generation (selection bias): Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate generation of a randomized sequence Unclear
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Allocation concealment (selection bias): Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate concealment of allocations prior to assignment Unclear (Cluster randomization)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Blinding of participants (performance bias): Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by participants during the study High
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Blinding of personnel/ care providers (performance bias): Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by personnel/care providers during the study. High
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias): Detection bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by outcome assessors. High Open label
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias): Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data Low 0-4%
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Selective Reporting (reporting bias): Reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting need to check NCT Protocol: Substance use (undefined); Delinquency (undefined); Intervention fidelity (undefined); Satisfaction (undefined)
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.